 This is Senate Judiciary. It is September 8th, 2020, meeting once again remotely. This morning, we're going to continue our conversations about S119, which is a bill that passed the Senate during the first, the second session of the set of this year's biennium. And we're now in the third session and the House has taken it up and has made significant changes and expansion, as well as the Governor's Executive Order. It does deal with some of the things that we were dealing with in S119, but it also deals with things that were in S124, that is mainly a government operations bill that Senator White's committee is looking at. So today we have Julio Thompson from the Attorney General's Office, the head of the the division on racial justice. And I was hoping to get some information from Julio regarding both of those matters. One is the significant house changes that seem based on a Seattle law, as well as how he sees the Governor's Executive Order fitting in with S119 and S124. But since S124 is a government office bill, it may be to be focused more on 119. Okay, I'd be happy to do so. So for the record, I'm Julio Thompson, Assistant Attorney General Director of the Attorney General Civil Rights Unit talking with you this morning about S119. As the committee knows, the version of S119 that passed the Senate, passed with our office's support, we embrace the California, basically what's been called the California standard for including a necessary standard. We believe that the standard really applies to all uses of force by law enforcement, not just deadly force. And I think there's language in the as past version of S119 that extends beyond deadly force, which is a small subset of all the force that officers may use in their career. I think the reference to the Executive Order is pertinent, or I think it's related to the proposed language from the House, because what the House is trying to do, it appears, is add more detail to fleshing out the necessary, the California standard, and to do that in statute. Typically, and what's regarded as best practice in law enforcement is that the really detailed policies that identify the many different situations, or try to address the many different situations that officers encounter in the field is really something you do through a policy, in part because the policies are amended and tweaked a lot more easily in light of real life situations that officers encounter in the streets. It's a lot easier to do that than to do that through the statute. And because Vermont's legislature isn't a full-time legislature, you could have situations where a department might, with community input, might want to refine its policy, but might be stuck in a period of time where they can't train away from a given standard because a statute is what it is. So, I think that the idea, the core principle, that all state law enforcement should have the same standards for their conduct, the same training that comes out of the academy from both the recruit and continuing education is something we embrace. So, it seems to me if there's going to be a development of the unified use of force policy, the language that we're seeing from the house would be something that you would normally encounter in such a policy, which would be broader even than the language that they provided here, but it would be part of that. You're muted, Senator Sears. How did the section, some of the sections get in? It looked like what they did was we passed S219 and it appears on, I'm looking at the side by side, and a law enforcement officer shall cease the use of deadly force as soon as the subject's surrenders are no longer forces and I'm in danger of death. So, how do you, how does a law enforcement officer, so you're permitting a use of deadly force until it's no longer necessary? I've had trouble with that piece and also it appears to, a law enforcement officer may use a prohibited restraint in a situation where use of deadly force is justified. So, it seems to undercut what we passed in S219. Was that part of the Seattle model or was that something that they came up with on their own? About the use of that restraint? Yeah, that you could, you can do a prohibitive restraint situation warrants. It's pretty, I don't have the Seattle policy in front of me. A lot of law enforcement policies within their deadly force policy or a subsection of their deadly force policy will address neck restraints and those that prohibit it typically say you can't use it unless deadly force is warranted. In other words, if the circumstances are such that the law and the policy would justify the officer discharging his firearm and there may be, and I think you've heard testimony early in the summer from Drew Bloom on the subject, there are circumstances where deadly force might be warranted or there's the officer or someone else is in a near death situation and using a firearm would be more hazardous than using some other type of force. So, I think the illustration he offered, for example, was two officers on the ground or an officer in a suspect suspect on the ground and there's a struggle for the officer's firearm and maybe the suspect has control of the officer's firearm and then another officer has to decide under the circumstances what force to use before that gun goes off and if the circumstances would allow that officer to discharge his firearm to strike the suspect and keep him from using the gun against the officer's partner, then the officer would be allowed to use a neck restraint which carries with it while it presents a deadly threat to the suspect doesn't can carry the risk of inadvertently harming the other officer who's on the ground who might be struck with a ricochet or a stray bullet. So, I think that is under those circumstances if an officer is faced with defending their life or defending the life of another person you will see pretty commonly for policies that address that that a prohibited restraint is permissible and I think I don't have 219 in front of me but I think 219 made reference to the self-defense statute which would include defense of life so you can you can defend your life or the life of another person by use of a neck restraint that's the law that applies to every person in Vermont not just law enforcement officers right self-defense statute. I just want to follow up with one more question then I'll go to Senator Bruce. I think the concern that I have and that of many is we seem to have nationwide and even in Vermont difficulty holding what I'm going to refer to as bad cops which is a very small minority of all the police officers in the state but holding those folks accountable and you know I think there's been many cases where behavior has been extremely questionable and we seem to have a hard time so I guess you know that's kind of my response and I don't want to do things that are going to continue to um exasperate the situation where the rogue gets away with stuff um when they perhaps shouldn't I don't know if Senator Bruce was questioning the same way but that's my concern. Uh well I I uh really an informational question for for Julio um Julio if if uh I believe 219 and 119 strike the justifiable homicide statute um and it was my understanding that a police officer even without that would have a remedy if they were on trial where they could make a self-defense argument either from common law or some other area of statute. Is that true if uh if we didn't add a protection here or if the uh justifiable homicide statute wasn't available to them that they could still argue self-defense? Um I'm a little unprepared to to really respond with an analysis of 219 since I was called on 119 I don't have that I don't know if Brent is able to I don't recall the language off the top of my head that uh that struck the existing self-defense statute. Well whether whether it does or doesn't isn't there always a remedy in in self-defense? Well I mean Vermont has another statute that that says unless uh directed by the legislature then the common law applies to Vermont and so the legal question would be I don't know the answer because I haven't had chance to think about it but uh the question would be if language just struck a self-defense statute then someone who who sought what it what it you know what does that mean does that reflect an intent to remove the self-defense uh standard um that's available to all criminal defendants um that would be the question really because unless there was language that said the common law principles in Vermont for self-defense uh here by apply um so whenever the the legislature elects to regulate something or set a standard and then it repeals it the question for a court is always going to be well why'd you repeal it what is the state of affairs that you intend? But if there's another if if as you say there's another statute that says in the absence of a proactive directive from the legislature then common law applies then striking a statute isn't the same as having a statute. Well I don't have that common law statute available to me I mean I was just paraphrasing it um but I mean that that would be the question really would be what the uh and and we do have ledge counsel here so I don't know whether Brent has oh I see it is the um 219 says that the justifiable homicide statute will be repealed next July. Yeah. So it's not repealed now um and the question just becomes what you know what you replace it with and I don't I don't know that we have a view about proposed language for the justified homicide statute uh so that's not something I can I can really address um I do think I mean in common law um uh and we we have others on this panel who are uh more familiar with this than I am in the criminal context because I don't practice criminal law but um but in common law if someone is facing you know imminent threat to their to their life or the life of other people uh than using force for the protection of self or protection of others um you know as a well-recognized doctrine there are lots of variants of that central doctrine though such as um whether you provoked the you know the the the the confrontation to begin with what other alternatives you have to using the sort of force that you're using and so that's why um you know some jurisdictions have elected to put that in statute rather than rely upon judge made law um for for the reason I bring it up is Senator Sears I think is exactly right which is as we began to um as a society as a nation we began to look at why police officers are practically speaking never prosecuted for crimes like this or successfully prosecuted is in my own opinion because over the years they have successfully lobbied for layer upon layer of protection union protection protection by statute common law protections which were always there so there are you know if you're a prosecutor prosecuting the officer who uh choked George Floyd to death you're facing an uphill battle so we had a lot of discussion in passing 219 about if we um prohibited the restraint flat out full stop prohibited it um and an officer did use it in the last resort it was my understanding that they would have a remedy at law um even without the justifiable homicide statute which as Julio pointed out is due to be struck under 219 so just Bryn if I could if I could just ask that general question um I don't I don't think that we can basically I don't think we can get rid of an officer's right to make a self defense argument in that case unless we were to specifically prohibit common law is you haven't but I think Bryn is about to tell you why that is because we only repealed section three of that justifiable homicide statute but okay you asked Bryn so I shouldn't have jumped in yeah let's ask Bryn um good morning committee for the record Bryn here from legislative legislative council um I thought that it may make sense for me to start out by saying that um the some members of the house committee have worked on a on a new draft of 119 which I have just shared with senator sears um and it makes a change that that um alters this conversation pretty significantly so I think I should share that if it's all right with the committee um which is that um good please share it okay it rather than repealing that um subdivision three of the justifiable homicide statute which as you know applies to law enforcement um it makes an amendment to that subsection instead so it um it sort of rewrites that subdivision that um I uh uh some sort of harm or it occurs um in the as a result of law enforcement using force or deadly force that's in compliance with the new standard um is considered justifiable homicide um can you share it on the screen Bryn so I'm not a host so I can't share it um but I can send that if if you'd like I can send that particular um language to Peggy and she can share it if that does it does it yeah that's fine um it's somewhat unusual um to have and this is part of the reason that all of this is so unusual we're dealing with a house bill that we may not have an opportunity to have a conference committee on that we may only have an opportunity to do um concur with further proposals of amendment may not even have that opportunity I've tried to talk with Tim about it so it's important that we keep in close contact with the house um but I don't want to interrupt if Julio has any comments but so if we could share that um Peggy um I haven't received it yet Bryn but I did make you a co-host so you might be able to share it well let me forward it to Peggy and then you could forward it to every member I just sent it I just sent it to Peggy um okay well I just did two okay and just to be clear this new draft hasn't um yet been reviewed by the house judiciary committee there's just a couple of members of that committee that have been working on it over the weekend so they haven't yet had to walk through of this new language and Julio hasn't seen it yet so just Bryn while we're figuring out how to get this document to everybody can I ask you a question at a basic ignorance s219 is now an act having been signed by the governor can the house come along with a proposal that we can subsequently in the same session revise a provision yeah so the I think that you're speaking specifically about that prohibited restraint language um so because that um there are portions of that bill that don't take effect until until later in fact um October 1st right yeah October 1st is a prohibited restraint and I believe that that repeal um takes place um and on July 1st of 2021 so yes we you can you got I think that the idea is to I think the idea that everybody discussed was was amending that language um prior to it taking effect interesting do you guys see it now I put it up there nope yeah if you don't mind scrolling down you'll see that all of this language in yellow I'm not sure that the committee has time to talk about all of these changes right now but those are all things we do I I still want to stick with Julio the yeah if you if you want this is a crazy way to try to deal with bills and I I'm beginning to wonder if I did send an email this morning to Tim Ash um with my concerns about this process I am very concerned that we're allowing a bill to pass with significant significant changes um as if we are a unicameral legislature and I I appreciate the house's willingness to keep us abreast of the changes going on but it's hard to get testimony scheduled um and then have like Julio this morning and then have a new draft already available that he hasn't had a chance to say so it's very difficult um I appreciate representative grads trying to keep in touch with me but I I am really concerned um uh and Senator Sears if I if I might you know the other weird thing about this situation is that we're in September now so you know if this turns around and gets signed in this short session it's going to come into force in October so waiting until January is not a crazy idea at which point we go back to a much more normal process so I I haven't seen the draft that was just shared I haven't had a time to really look it over it could be that it you know rests really comfortably with what we did in 219 and and I would feel better about it but the drafts we have been looking at you know what's to be gained by rushing something in in order to get a couple of months uh I I think honestly the only reason to do it is to prevent provisions in 219 from coming into law well Senator Sears yeah may I um I I believe that I think that the comments that you've made and that senator Baruch just made are are important and I thought that we had heard from a number of people including Mike Schirling and Susanna Davis and a number of other people that trying to rush something through just to get it through is not necessarily the best thing to do and that it might make more sense as Senator Baruch said to wait until January and really try to get it right we may not yes I don't disagree um on the other hand I want to I believe that this draft and Brynn um I believe this draft tries to address some of the concerns that we expressed at our last meeting um yes I I think I would characterize two of the major changes as um returning to the senate version of the way that the standard or the policy describes prohibited restraint it provides that law enforcement may not use a prohibited restraint for any reason um and then it again as I mentioned earlier it does not repeal that um justifiable homicide subsection and instead it revises it to provide that law enforcement use of force that's in compliance with those standards um could result in a justifiable homicide defense well that entire statute needs rework yeah if you if you know the reference to mistresses and masters and everything else right it does make some um other amendments to that language if you if you look at section two um there are some other amendments that are made to the entire statute the that one the yeah the justifiable homicide uh statute and that's in section and it's not on your screen right now it's in section two um but it does update some of that language um and makes some grammatical changes that um that should make the statute easier to um can we come back to this on Friday when Julio and others have had an opportunity to look at their proposed changes to 119 and 124 that works for me I don't know I'm asking anyone I'm asking Julio I'm asking you I'm asking Peggy I believe we have Friday open we don't have an agenda item yet Mr. Chair I'm available Friday if the committee needs me Senator Sears I have to Friday I have to take um Bill for his post-op on Friday morning and I don't know that they've made any changes to 124 yet well okay well why don't we just stick with 119 then because 124 is in government ops so if we can all come back together yeah Senator Benning yeah I'm I don't know whether it is um if the consensus of the committee is that we not try to force feed this through this year I guess for myself then I would be asking why do we want to have an agenda item on something that we're not going to actually act upon and I'll tell you personally Dick my law practice is falling apart around me as I try to deal with this extended session I was really hoping we would be out of here by now so adding things just to have something on the agenda to talk about is someplace I would prefer not to go I'm going to defer to the chair's decision on what you want to do but I just have to say that for myself personally I don't want to spend time talking about something if we're not actually going to act on it and I'll leave it at that well my concern is we're the ones that kill this bill and I don't want to be in that position for this session and so I was hoping that we would be able to work something out with the other body that would get us a bill and it seems like they've moved closer to our position on some of this with the new draft so that's why I think it's behooves us to not as long as they're continuing to work on it who's us to continue to work on it and I understand that I mean in my personal life is also I think all of us have been impacted I've got you know my I've got doctor's appointments and things not this week but next week that are going to keep me from some of these meetings it's gotten just you know this whole idea that we can just drop our lives the other thing I want to say is too is many of us have campaigns to run and unfortunately this is this this extended session I was given a tremendous advantage to non-incumbents I think we saw that in the primaries Dick I think that I might fall somewhere between you and Joe in other words what what is keeping me curious about going forward is what what is in this draft so I you know I definitely want to sit with it and and look it over so I'm free Friday and I would I would be happy to be looking it over on Friday but I I know what Joe's saying about if the committee feels like we might go forward with something then I think Friday makes sense the other thing I want to say is you know the house has made it very clear as have a number of the advocates that slowing down the process should not be a dirty word because we want to get it right I heard loud and clear from Michael Sherling that they really want this bill not to be pushed through that they want more consideration so I I don't think we're in the same position we were in at the end of the last session if we were to say that we were going to take this up in January I don't think there would be an outcry because what we're what we're doing here is much you know Michael Sherling kept calling it a statutory overlay and that's that's right and we should know exactly what we're doing but again the caveat of whatever is in this draft might be acceptable in a way that what I've seen so far isn't so I can't really say one way or the other until I've looked at it right well we'll meet Friday and those who obviously can't make it they can't make it as long as Senator Nick and myself and Barutha here and Joe if you need to take time away take time away and we understand this is a citizen legislature and I think as citizens the expectation is that we especially for those of you with another job I don't have another job so I'm retired luckily but those of you with another job need to need to be there too so I understand that Alice you've been silent I can be there Friday I am concerned that you know doing this as we're doing and just getting piece by piece here is hard to do to get the whole picture and what's changing in what places and what those changes will mean I'm concerned about that you know to be able to really look it over carefully and I guess the other thing is so the as I understand it the whole house senate judiciary has not taken a look at this it's just the first it was I don't know if it's the same group that's working on this now it's not clear to me Bryn do you know is it the same group of people that did the summer work yes yes it's you know a couple of members of the senate or the house judiciary committee have been sort of taking the lead on doing the work over the summer and now and that's correct that the whole committee hasn't yet had a had a walk through this new draft in fact I don't this this is this is the first time it's public it hasn't gone even on their web their committee web page yet I see there could be more changes I'm going to suggest that we do try the 11th or to look at where they're at but that looking at that that's two weeks from the date that the legislature is due to adjourn on the 25th that should give us a pretty good idea if there's something that changes we need to make during the week of the 14th and give us an opportunity to have input into those changes and then we can make a final decision around the 17th for example what Joe just said I've got a doctor's appointment on the 16th for minor surgery in the morning then on the 18th my wife has a vision appointment that I can't so I mean I'm going to be missing some of those days too so we're all in that mode and and so I think we just made to make a final decision by the 17th okay and I hopefully Tim we can talk with Senator Ash about this and his thoughts on it I have you know as I said I've sent him an email I also reached out to the CSG Justice Center and hope to hear from somebody from there in law enforcement as well and Bryn sent them copies of the bill but that here's the problem Bryn sent them copies of the bill that no longer is relevant so all right Julio thank you very much for spending time with us I'm sorry it wasn't more productive but sometimes they change things in the middle of the stream I understand just when you think you're you're going downstream you turn upstream well I'll wait a wait an invitation for Friday from Peggy and I'll see you then and brand if you could send me if you haven't already the the latest draft and just the one that you were talking about today and just if there are other drafts that come up from the house just make sure I have it I'll check them with you Thursday to make sure I'm current I'm sure that Peggy will post this version on the committee webpage so it's okay okay very good thank you thank you ask you that so you want me to post that now Bryn yeah okay yep thank you all all right thank you committee we're an understanding group all right continuing with our it's just never ceases to amaze sometimes so continuing with our efforts to understand the budget for 2022 with the with breaking recommendations perhaps to the appropriations committee we have John Campbell and Annie Noonan to present the state's attorneys and sheriff's budgets uh sheriffs don't have any budgets right just doing away with them we've already looked at those I mean with their budget items there's no need for them to be there they don't need any budget I'm not sure if you're if you're being serious you're not senator so I'll just well I heard that they're broke everybody's broke now they're they're um yeah Annie has I believe uh she'll be address she's right across the room for me by the way we're socially distant we are in the in the office I understand that you said that you were not employed I with your hat on today I was just wondering whether they were thinking about bringing you up from minors this is this is what's commonly referred to as a tank season um but we're doing it on purpose I think the Yankees are doing it by mistake yeah what can you do what can you say my dolphin start on sunday we'll see what happens with them yeah watch out for cam yeah yeah it's gonna be an interesting interesting matchup it is just anyhow I do I in all seriousness um you have budget challenges that um are going to be difficult from what the governor's office proposed for the department of state's attorneys and sheriffs yeah uh first of all John Campbell for executive director of state's attorneys and sheriffs uh thank you for inviting us here today it's myself andy newton and andy newton and Barbara Bernadine uh are in the office again social distancing so we can present this to you you know this this year you guys have an extremely difficult time so and so does of course all the you know agencies and departments in the uh in state government we're trying to figure out how we are going to um afford or how we're going to be able to make it through the the next year and you know we've been we've been sitting here and probably adjusted our budget you know at least a dozen times trying to uh cut here cut there because originally the exercise given to us by the governor's office was a six percent cut and it was just impossible without cutting personnel because I think as all of you know um almost all of our budget for the state's attorneys is personnel and uh you know there's other that is for um you know depositions for experts and and uh office supplies and the like but the majority of our budget is all personnel and what's truly difficult to try to figure out this year and I think joke joke and uh speak to this is that we don't know what's going to happen going forward you know currently we're we're six positions are six people short right now six deputies and the fact is that most cases are almost in a holding pattern because you know the defendants and no I'm not complaining about this in the sense that I would if I was their attorney I'd probably recommend the same thing most of the defendants are just they're in a wait-and-see pattern as well because um you know we we try to see if uh if some cases can be settled some but uh the party that uh the and is waiting and is asked for trial so uh what happens is that when when dyke breaks uh and when the um we go back to uh do trials then you're going to have a plethora of cases uh that all want you know to go to trial and that's going to be so backlogged uh you know the the number of people personnel that are going to be needed both uh not just with us but also the defense bar um I you know I'm sure matt's probably told you it's going to be very difficult for them to do their job uh with just the the personnel once this thing uh goes back and once people are asking for trial you were kind of breaking up there john at my end I don't know if uh yeah and I'm sorry you were breaking up you're you froze up there so I didn't know if you asked a question no I said you were breaking up on my end but I don't know if it was me or you well anyway I'll just continue on if there's um I gotta put my see you guys um john I can only hear about every fourth word of yours and now you're completely frozen but the governor's uh recommend I can't hear anything bill any can you hear if josh john can't they uh I john we can't hear you now we've lost you john any can you hear us and then also you um yeah john we're having a difficult time hearing you you keep breaking up john turn off your video I think he did I'm wondering can the committee hear me yes yes we can hear you clearly maybe if john will just turn off his video we'll uh be able to just hear his voice thanks to I think so there we go do you want to use john come on and use my computer switch we're gonna switch so john can come on my computer do this date does your department need new computers actually it's not computers we need it's but I think I'm coming in over there anything I'm sorry we just want to lower the now annie needs to shut that computer off or shut the mute off yeah turn that one off I just like the top okay can you hear me yep okay so um the the uh the matter's complicated by the fact that we have one domestic violence prosecutor in Bennington or Wyndham county and that's in jeopardy uh at least for at least half time and then the investigator in Bennington county uh which that was all from a grant we don't have usually have investigators but there was a grant um that provided Bennington with that if you recall these were funded positions from the center and then they re-signed all the different grants a couple of years ago so we went out and found a grant to cover that but unfortunately that was tied to the language from the federal the federal the DOJ had required us to put in as you know which I think you guys you all put in in S-234 which was given the victim of a sexual assault the right to ask that heard that the defendant or the defendant after a problem after arraignment could be tested for the presence of HIV or other sexually transmitted diseases which was a been what have been a confidential and the results only given to the victim of course the victims doctor and S-234 we passed the language so that they would be made whole and that the federal government would approve it the house health and well health not health and welfare the health the house health care committee did not like the provision um because a uh one group complained so they have threatened to take all of S-234 into their committee if it's not drinking so you have a $40,000 hole is it for this year or for the next three years is it over three year period it's a 40,000 yeah it's it's it's over a three year period which means that so it's about 15,000 a year yes so I would propose that we urge the house the house if the house puts in the 15k to make those positions whole or if they don't I would I would propose we we urge the senate to do the same senate approach everybody follow what happened the house took the language that we put in S-234 out who was it that opposed I can't remember uh here you want me to go ahead John yeah so so what happened was that went over to the house and then um the network decided that they were not going to offer an opinion uh offer testimony and support of it uh and had conversations with Maxine or with the representative grad uh where they were concerned because there were people in their organization in the HIV community that were opposed to it because they felt that it was stigmatizing to anyone who had HIV HIV this had nothing to do with the you know with people who had HIV this you know this was limited strictly to you know a person who was arraigned and for sexual assault and the testing results of testing would be just remain with that person with the defendant and also with the with the victim so the I kept on trying to discuss I've discussed with a lot of people and and then the organization the advocacy group that decided that they were totally opposed to it then they have asked well I'll tell you what we'll come to compromise if you give us ten thousand dollars to come up with designings of programs for you then we'll you know we can think about supporting it which I find personally offensive and there's just no way in the world that I would recommend that our department spend a dime on on the situation and I just find it important actually that it occurred but again that's neither here nor there we're we're concerned about you know being able to provide you know people in Bennington and Windham counties with the with the these individuals that are helping with domestic violence cases so I think those are the most important so however it's done if the state wants to backfill the feds that's fine and so I thank you senator for doing that but that again is just one of the needs that we have for the for the personnel and Annie will go into that more detail well can I ask a question yep so did the house not see this little bribery scheme here I don't know if they're familiar that if they were personally made aware of that yet I have not discussed it with Representative Grad or anyone in that it was health and well it was the health committee for human services I thought well my no I think I was healthy well my understanding is that what we were told is that if it does go if the if the house judiciary committee if they had put that language in 234 then the health committee would take it into their committee right the committee chair was absolutely opposed to any list this type of language where it comes from I could just give you a quick so you understand because I was totally perplexed is this is a national movement where the HIV community is afraid that it's a slippery slope because there are two states I believe a few states down south that that if you have been and if you've had HIV and you transmitted somebody else then you can be charged with with a crime of course that's not what we're going not even talking about that I don't think that's right I would not support any law like that but I think they were you know they felt that this is just sort of a foot in the door which as we all know I mean that's the one one thing you always hear about the slippery slope I just don't see it in this I think that a victim who has been sexually assaulted certainly has the right to know whether you know she's going to be tested and the discussion was on it's a lengthy discussion probably you know too much for right here but it'd be more than happy to share with you or talk to you offline if you want to I I think we should move on either every other areas of the budget where you need money that that didn't get appropriated by the governor yeah or if not may not be in the house bill here's where I think our biggest pressure comes outside of that and this pressure is one that will not only affect us but it's it's it's kind of who's going to reach it you know far or are going to be far reaching and you all are familiar with it and that is with their case management problem a case management system we were told by the vendor our vendor currently journal technologies that as of June next year they consider this system to be outdated and will no longer support it even more complicated than that is that they will not create any what's called security patches so mark coombs who is the head of the for ads who's head of the tech there so there's just impossible for us to have this on the state system all without security patches also we wouldn't work with dan smith from joint fiscal because this involves interaction with the court system with their odyssey system without this case management we would not be able to integrate completely with them and it's it's just like it's not stopped we we have talked to tyler who is actually the the manufacturer for odyssey thinking that what the best way is you all know some of the problems that we've been encountering as go with tyler because then you have a fully integrated system everybody that the computers are all talking to each other they're talking the same language and so we we were looking to go towards to them and they can make the total conversion for us but it's going to be 1.4 million over a couple of years any any of you over that and we have we right now we have about 350 thousand that we can put towards that but we have to make a decision almost immediately because the vendor we have is now telling us they're not going to host us any longer if we don't upgrade to one of their programs and honestly i was we we had a conference with them a phone conference every teleconference like this within the other day i've i've been very concerned about their management and about the strength of their company for a number of reasons but this did not the call did not make us feel any better which is put it that way so if we get stuck in the middle of nothing then everything comes grinding to a halt because then we won't be able to go and do any electronic filing and it's going to be extremely problematic unfortunately this was not something that we saw happening because we didn't think that they were going to all of a sudden stop we just found that out in i believe annie was in february or march that we found that out right before the the pandemic so so that's our next biggest pressure i'm not i won't go into the little ones and let annie tell you the ups and downs but that one certainly is is one where we did put it for covid funds and we i believe very sincerely that they should be um go to that because this involves all the remoteness that we're talking about that we're going to probably have to do for the next few years and um we can't do it unless we have you know the souther's system so uh but probably the covid funds are spending it in time and now i don't i don't need to go i don't need to go through the we don't need to go through the ups and downs we just want to know what above the governor's recommend you if i can have any annie we'll go ahead and address these numbers then oh okay come over here we got about five minutes left so great thank you senators uh good morning um they don't want the okay i'm sorry and i didn't hear your question so i think um probably the most important thing is for us is the current vacancies um and how to how uh how to figure out if there's a way to get some funding to fill those uh john mentioned the two biggest pressures for the department are are basically being down six positions since 2018 we have four vacancies which we were originally budgeting for this year they were in our budget and then as a result of some of the cuts uh it looks like we can fill only two of the four that we had planned on filling this year so that will leave there's tremendous pressure on those offices but we also know that there's pressures uh in other other offices with our caseload numbers are just going up and up um we did get some relief from the state finance and management they gave most of the department some relief on their internal service fees and that was helpful and that came to us to be about 37 000 but really what we need would be money to fill to fill the additional two vacancies that we have and then as john mentioned this whole issue with the case management system we have only about three hundred thousand dollars that we could put towards it we are working with both joint fiscal office and with ADS to put together an RFP but we do have a pretty good sense of what an integrated system with the court might look like and john is correctly quoting that um we look it looks like it might cost us upwards of about 1.1.2 million um that would be obviously um something we had hoped originally that we would have some ability to cover that through COVID funds but as you know December 31 is quickly approaching and those monies need to be expended by that and you can't pay for things the feds will not allow you to pay for or kind of up front for certain things so we're really struggling with with all of that we were hopeful that those rules will change that congress will do something um between now and then and that would give this and i on my understanding from representative welsh is that congress is pretty well aligned to at least give more flexibility on the cares act funds that we've already received that would be really great and what one of the things senators that we did receive so i think you probably know that a lot of the courts are doing things remotely uh we did we did get approval and are working towards getting Cisco endpoints put into into our offices because we were not able to we didn't have that kind of technology and we were able to do some upgrading of some computers in the field for people who also had five and six-year-old computers and were not able to effectively um remote in um so we are able to do that um you heard through some of your other i think some of the senators on this committee have also heard some of our challenges with um uh just the workload pressure that has come to us as a result of the court's new systems and those are real um and uh you know our estimate and some of our offices as the filing issues are are creating a lot of administrative work but what we really could use would be assistance with getting our four vacancies filled and potentially some support for our it need as john said that uh we are we are in no you know we're basically out of out of commission with a system next this coming june and that was sprung on us and and all the other users uh you know uh that this company has in the field uh we all learned about that at the same time by a letter saying we're dumping that project we've considered it an aged out project so we're not going to support it anymore we have asked them if we would if they would work with us on a deal to give us some tech support for a year they told us they are not inclined to do that um and i guess they are trying to push people into their new product but we really aren't at a point of making that decision yet so that would be good news senator if the um federal government would give us some more time to spend some of that covid money but uh the cares act money but right now um uh the amount of money we could we would really need to help us get those other positions filled if we were only talking you know two the the last two of the four would if we probably we would need about two hundred and two hundred and seventy thousand dollars when you're loading in salaries and benefits all all all expenses well that's are you are you requesting two hundred and seventy thousand above the government's recommend uh to fill yes to fill the two that we don't have any money for senator that's our best projection about what we would need yes so the answer on that would be john's saying i'm not allowed to ask so i don't know are we asking yes yes i would say i'd say yes i mean then john can fire me later all right so for the committees the the three things you're asking for are thirteen thousand for a year for the next three years for the bennington windham county state attorneys i think it's yeah two hundred and seventy thousand who are two more positions over what the governor we say you're down six you're filling two and you'd fill two more so it won't be down to we'd be down that's correct that's correct senator we would we're we're down six we have enough money to fill two in our own budget we would be requesting enough money to fill other two more i mean preferably we would like to fill three um that would be a that would be our best our best situation now but we didn't want to seem greedy i will um does the committee want to weigh in on these three requests which the second request is really we don't have much at this point to do with because it's pressurizing on a system and obviously we've had little influence on the judo sherry's odyssey system that's too right i would say that for windsor county yes they're having a hard time because they're down positions i'm just asking committee do you want to recommend to the to the senate appropriations committee that they fund thirteen thousand for a year for three years for the tv positions and two hundred and seventy thousand i don't know where the committee will find the appropriations committee has the money with two hundred and seventy thousand for two more deputy states attorney position i know that matt's going to commit an ask for four hundred thousand um just tomorrow matt valerio has a because of care what was going to be care zack funding is not uh has been ruled not appropriate so he has a four hundred thousand so senator sears yes i i think that um i agree that they need this money and i would be supportive of recommending that the appropriations committee look at it favorably i also realize that probably are the other committees that we serve on are also asking the appropriations committee to put additional money in other areas so i would support this one and then leave it to the appropriations committee to try to figure out how to to do that well since two members of this committee are on the appropriations committee i like to put it on the list we'll put it on the list and see what happens i just know guarantee but at least it'll be on the list yes do you want to say anything else john joe or phil do you have any comments on that i don't know anything else john or annie no senator the um i will just say that um our other two sections of the budget are s i u uh we feel we can manage with uh what we have in front of us for the year we've talked to mark metair and i think we're mark's able to manage that um the sheriffs um their rescission was about 145 thousand dollars their carry forward was 102 they've been in obviously in an unusual year since since the courts closed down most of the senators know that what we pay for from the money that comes to the department is the sheriff's salaries and benefits are paid out of our appropriation as are the 25 state transport deputies since the courts have been idled for in person and we have not been moving folks from the correctional facilities back and forth most of what although there have been some there have been some extraditions and there have been some travel but but it's much limited the other thing that they that they have been able to do because the statute provides that for them is that the state transport deputies when they are not engaged in transportation are permitted to engage in general law enforcement duties in their counties and we've been working with the sheriffs to make sure that they're clearing those those assignments with us to make so that we're watching to make sure that there's not any type of you know double charging you know charging a private contract and then being on the state time so we're working closely with the sheriffs to make sure that they're using our state transport deputies properly some of them are doing the monitoring of the the hotels and motels where they put up homeless people the proprietors that was part of the deal that they had to have some law enforcement presence so the sheriffs have been doing that they've also just basically been involved with some of the work around the schools and the school districts you know being you know being on the campuses of the schools to you know watch and provide some security support and then just generally having a presence in the local communities which I think is very important right now for a lot of the small communities to have just to have some of the presence of the sheriffs being available so we've used them if I think most of the departments have have been very very active in terms of using them some more than others but we're we're we're looking at all of how that's happening so they will be able to manage under their under their budget the budgets that have been presented to them for 21 we're confident we can manage those budgets so there's no asks in either of those two areas senators appreciate them thank you very much I wasn't aware I am concerned about the use of the sheriff's transport deputies in general law enforcement and how that's all playing out so hopefully the auditor of the council be looking at that I do talk with I I do talk with Doug Hoffer he calls me pretty regularly we do check-ins back and forth and I'm aware of the auditor's questions and concerns and I try to guide the sheriffs based upon well I'm concerned for example if the sheriff and hasn't if the sheriff of Rutland County has a contract with Wallingford is the Wallingford contract being covered by a transport deputy who then is you know and as this whole thing needs to be I that would be my concern I think we agree or is the sheriff of Rutland County putting two deputies one the contract and the other one of his transport deputies in Wallingford and providing extra service to that we agree that I think the statute has not been particularly clear with with what we expect and I think that that the executive committee of the sheriffs agree a conversation at some point to clarify the roles and responsibilities and what they do when they're not transporting what what we would like them to do I think that we would agree that that's a that's a proper conversation in a a long needed conversation for us to be having with with with the legislature and with the auditor senator sears yes senator white I I just have to say that the whole way we fund and provide access by the sheriffs is just the craziest system that was ever devised and it was as if we put some people in a room and said come up with the most insane system you can think of and this is what they came up with and they're not they ran into a lot of issues around the pent that were made clearer because of the pandemic that they're not eligible for certain things from SBA for example because they're considered government but they're not they weren't eligible for PPEs because they were considered government but they're not eligible for other things because they're considered entrepreneurs and businesses so they're caught in this really odd bind and I think we need to look at the whole the whole way I think it's more than an odd bind my opinion it's more than an odd bind you have a situation where you have officers funded by the state 25 officers funded by the state we're under the control of the sheriff who can use them in various manner and when the state's not transporting prisoners in a regular basis those officers are out doing other stuff that the state is paying for that doesn't make sense and any other I mean if it it just is a and so I'm concerned that this situation and I'm not suggesting that any of our sheriffs would do this but it would be pretty easy to you know you've got a sheriff who's covering a hotel I've heard from sheriffs that that that LaMoyle County had to cover Chittenden County's hotels because Chittenden County wouldn't cover the hotels so how does that work and what were those transport deputies doing yes that is that I believe that that's accurate and I I'm not sure why the Chittenden County sheriff's deputies were not engaged in that I think that I know that Sheriff Marcu was and Sheriff Shatney and I think Sheriff Harlow were sending folks and I think there were potentially some other sheriffs I'm not exactly sure I know that you know one of the things that has been really interesting in as I look at it in how the allowances for both state and federal provisions for the COVID know work have played out is that employees have been able to identify ask for FMLA leave for situations where their daycares were closed or their schools were closed or they themselves had concerns about pre-existing conditions so I think that there have been some some of the transport deputies have been on the COVID COVID charge the what they call the COVID know work charge and I'm not I have not looked into each of the their their reasons you know what I don't think but that's all I'm saying is that if the Chittenden County Sheriff refused to provide the hotels with deputies and the orange of the Lamoille County Sheriff did what happened to the Chittenden County transport deputies um I I believe senator from what I've seen I think most of the Chittenden County Sheriff deputies have been on the COVID know work charge charge code great that's just great I think we're digging a hole deeper and deeper so maybe we should stop digging and climb out of the hole so um I think that's all I have to share I did send Peggy our up and down and I sent Peggy a sheet that had our budget for the past few years plus what the rescission meant for us carry forward um you know and I I agree with I agree with everything John said in terms of our needs are pretty much just our personnel filling um our our um dealing with that federal cut and um obviously our IT need is going to be the big the big driver for us coming up okay great thank you senators have a good day thank you John says he got cut off but thank you very much thank you John sorry you got cut off no problem he's got a fancy computer I got an old workhorse well yours works one works okay thanks senators all right committee thank you very much committee my plan is to um go over the four items that they raised and um asked the appropriations committee to also consider having the audit to look into the use of transport deputies during the pandemic okay is there opposition to that okay Peggy uh we'll adjourn for the day and and get back tomorrow morning at 10 as our agenda pretty well set for tomorrow uh yeah tomorrow we're all set we have each 962 and everyone's been confirmed and then Matt's coming in to do the budget okay good Thursday we have S119 we have Michael Shirling and Colonel Birmingham coming in good um and then Friday we have S119 Julio Thompson I think when would you just send a note to Michael Shirling that we'd like a discussion about how they see the governor's order order uh order that sounded like a Bostonian the governor's order um how it impacts S119 okay and were there any other witnesses Senator Sears and I guess we should provide them everybody with the updated the most updated version if friend could yeah so that they're not talking about last week's version yep okay and if I hear anything on S119 let me know if you if I hear I will the only ones that I would think of would be people from the um justice center if any of them got okay let me know all right thank you all very much question Peggy just do a question let me let me in the live stream first okay